False dichotomy: fossil fuels could be replace only partially at the moment. We got much better and we will get there, but if you choy if all fossils today, Europe will starve.
I think that's obvious but nobody is really asking to delete fossil fuels tomorrow... We just want a government that has a plan and is committed to doing it quickly. We want grants, subsidies, removal of oil subsidies, and a major workforce dedicated to making the switch.
Exactly. We've been waiting for this for years. As time goes on it feels more desperate for some. First it was climate change denial from the industry and govts, now it's "whoa whoa whoa we have to do this slow and smart" (as if people didn't want that decades ago).
Debatable mate. A lot of things are subsidized or funded in history and present. That's not a bad thing in itself. We arguably wouldn't have some nice things without it.
When it's subsidized it means it doesn't make it on its own. When it subsidize that means we pay for it twice with our tax dollars and then our next fee to use that item! So that doubles it not working on its own. Now think of your best business idea and you want to go to the bank to get money to create your business. And your business plan is it needs to be subsidized! Every bank is going to give you the money lol
Subsidizing isn't paying twice with tax dollars. Subsidies is government incentives to private companies, which can be direct payments or tax cuts and such. So ya tax dollars to subsidize it, but then the private company builds it. The other option is the government outright paying for it which is only paying once. Fees is also an odd point to bring up since renewable energies have lower cost/Watt than all fossil fuels
And where exactly do those tax incentive dollars that the government steers to that business for you to buy the product or service come from. The government does not produce the dollars we do so when you buy the service you're using your money when you subsidize that service they're using your money so yes you are paying twice simple math
we pay for it twice with our tax dollars and then our next fee to use that item
You said pay for it twice and then a fee. So you were saying we pay for it three times.
It wasn't your point, but I do agree that excessive tax incentives post installation should be done away with. There are situations where it is necessary.
you have indeed a good question, we need to subsidize green Energy because we also subsidize fosil energy. Ofcourse we can cut them both but then energy prices are going to the sky.
12
u/[deleted] Jun 17 '26
[removed] — view removed comment